from the sickening dept

Some have argued that Meet the Press' David Gregory was just playing "devil's advocate" in asking reporter Glenn Greenwald if he should be arrested for "aiding and abetting" Ed Snowden for doing journalism. I'm not sure I agree with that, but now the NY Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin, normally a business reporter, has gone even further in saying flat out that given Snowden left Hong Kong, he'd "arrest Snowden and now I'd almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who seems to be out there, he wants to help him get to Ecuador or whatever."

Of course, there is no evidence that Greenwald is helping Snowden get anywhere. In the meantime, a journalist suggesting another journalist be arrested because his relationship with a source is too close is incredible, and ridiculous. This is doubly true for Sorkin, a journalist who has been, at times, accused of cozying up to Wall Street bankers to tell "their side" of the story of the economic troubles of the past few years.

After a bunch of people called Sorkin out for this he tried to argue that he was not calling for Greenwald to be arrested despite his clear statements in which he appeared to call for exactly that. Sorkin then claimed that he was just "raising other questions." In response, Greenwald shot back: "Did you conspire with all of your extremely close WSJ-executive sources to commit fraud? Did you know about it? #JustAsking." And, really, that's the perfect retort. Anyone confusing a reporter reporting on some information with "conspiring" with the source is making a fool of himself.

Later, Greenwald opined on why he thinks various "establishment" journalists seem to be suggesting that he should be arrested for doing the journalism they failed to do:

Some of what is driving this hostility from some media figures is personal bitterness. Some of it is resentment over my having been able to break these big stories not despite, but because of, my deliberate breaching of the conventions that rule their world.

But most of it is what I have long criticized them for most: they are far more servants to political power than adversarial watchdogs over it, and what provokes their rage most is not corruption on the part of those in power (they don't care about that) but rather those who expose that corruption, especially when the ones bringing transparency are outside of, even hostile to, their incestuous media circles.

They're just courtiers doing what courtiers have always done: defending the royal court and attacking anyone who challenges or dissents from it. That's how they maintain their status and access within it. That's what courtiers to power, by definition, do.

It's a harsh assessment -- perhaps too harsh -- but it does offer a pretty good explanation for the way reporters are taking seriously (and, in some cases, appearing to advocate) for this ridiculous notion that by reporting on Snowden's leaks, Greenwald is somehow a co-conspirator.

Update: This morning Sorkin issued an apology to Greenwald, saying that he believes in freedom of the press and thinks this is an important story, and he didn't mean to imply that Greenwald should be arrested. Rather, he claims, it was a poorly executed attempt to raise some basic questions about the role of the media in all of this.

State propaganda

The fact is that his best student was Richard Nixon. He gave him a three step program to get elected then use the election to push his agenda. And now Obama plays from that same playbook. There's no Frank Church to counter this argument. Now we have the Edward Snowdens and Julian Assanges.

Why? Well, it's mostly because of the "Public Relations" that people have to sift through. I don't think it will end anytime soon. When the public has the means to decipher the BS, they are attacked. Wikileaks? Not as strong as it could be for journalism. Manning? Silenced. Assange? Silenced. Snowden? A traitor for exposing spying.

And from what I've seen, we could have a much better society if it weren't for the fact that it's catered to the richest in America. It's not a surprise that our deficit is the loss of taxes the rich pay. It's not a joke that our public schools are suffering and depriving our children of an education. And it's not all that impressive that people like Snowden have looked into this abyss and seen the power of a profit motive similar to the Stratfor emails or even FISA court processes.

Yet Obama is supposed to be the king here? I don't think that's right. He's going through the motions of protecting the aristocracy. That's the most depressing thing here. We have Google spying on us for their benefit:

The director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, was adviser to Condaleeza Rice, the former secretary of state in the Bush administration who lied that Saddam Hussein could attack the US with nuclear weapons.

Cohen and Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt ― they met in the ruins of Iraq ― have co-authored a book, The New Digital Age, endorsed as visionary by the former CIA director Michael Hayden and the war criminals Henry Kissinger and Tony Blair.

Yet we go on... The war on the public continues as we have a country catered to the powerful. Yet very few "journalists" exist to curb this, opting instead to make friends and promote what people say without any fact checking. We have a corporate influence, which handles the public relations nightmare and gives us bad information. It's promoted by the state while protecting the powerful.

How much more is the American public going to take before people say enough?

The truth hurts

Greenwald has it right-he's actually doing his professional job, while those who are not are the ones who are attacking him with such a vengeance.

The American media are such tools of the government that they'll willingly repeat the government mantra because they know they'll be able to claim innocence when it comes time to hold someone to account for this mess.

"We were only doing what we were told."

Freedom of the press might exist, but our media isn't worth the paper that they legally depend on to do their 'job.'

That's what you get when large corporations are in charge of most of the news in one country: a lapdog press, slavering over lies.

Re: The truth hurts

I think it has even more to do with access. To be a journalist during an election takes a good relation with at least one of the candidates to get close enough to get the "good stories". If you are critical, you will end up with having to create your own stories.

Don't get me wrong, it can be done, but it is just easier and cheaper to get the connections. Oh, and Reuters is the fake god of lazy journos!

Kinda disappointed you said this...

It's a harsh assessment -- perhaps too harsh -- but it does offer a pretty good explanation for the way reporters are taking seriously (and, in some cases, appearing to advocate) for this ridiculous notion that by reporting on Snowden's leaks, Greenwald is somehow a co-conspirator.

It's not a harsh assessment, it's a realistic one and there's no way it's too harsh. I'm not saying you agree with his detractors but by saying it's harsh you kind of play to their side.

We need this kind of reporting, and, just like we need Snowden to reveal what the Government is doing, we need people like Greenwald to expose what the media is, or isn't, doing.

"I put my foot in my mouth" Sorkin, early today

He says he supports Greenwald's first amendment rights in covering the story and backpedals about accusing Greenwald of aiding Snowden in fleeing from the US DOJ. He claims he put his foot in his mouth and just wanted to bring up the issue, in general, of journalists aiding a subject to run from justice. I give him some credit for the apology but he still needs to clarify further.

Re: Re: The truth hurts

To be a journalist during an election takes a good relation with at least one of the candidates to get close enough to get the "good stories".

You don't get the good stories by having good relations with at least one of the candidates. You get the crap stories that are typical of the MSM. You get the story the candidate wants you to print. The good stories are the ones they don't want you to print. The good ones should piss them off.

If you are critical, you will end up with having to create your own stories.

Isn't creating (and I don't mean fabricating) your own story the whole point of journalism? Reporting warmed over press releases any monkey can do.